It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 4:42 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
ekstra   ara
 Post subject: 2012 NFPA 70E ROP - PDF Download Here
PostPosted: Sat Jun 05, 2010 12:33 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm
Posts: 1219
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
2012 NFPA 70E Report on Proposals
It is finally here. Thanks to the hard work of all those that made proposals and to the Electrical Safety in the Workplace Committee Members, the 2012 NFPA 70E Report on Proposals is ready. Download the PDF file with the link below.

[url="http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70E/70E-A2011-ROP.pdf"][DOWNLOAD 2012 NFPA 70E Report on Proposals][/url]

Public Comments Due by September 3, 2010
Anyone may submit a public comment on the proposed changes documented in the ROP. The comments are due by September 3, 2010. You may download the comment form at:

[url="http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/CodesStandards/NFPACommentForm.doc"]ROC Comment Form Download[/url]

[url="http://submissions.nfpa.org/onlinesub/onsubmain.php"]ROC Comment Form Online[/url]

Discuss the ROP Here
We are ready to begin the discussion and debate of the ROP right here at ArcFlashForum.com There are many good submittals and of course, a few that might raise some eyebrows. This is a good place to use as a sounding board and we may find that a few comments are warrented.

_________________
Jim Phillips, P.E.
Brainfiller.com


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 8:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:17 pm
Posts: 8
Anyone ready to provide a summary of significant proposals? I have yet to make it through all 244 pages. :)
Thanks!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:12 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:40 am
Posts: 119
I am sure each one is important to the people proposing it, ;)


In my opinion Log #79 should have been accepted in principle.

124 should have been accepted, esentially for the reason the Explanation of Neg states


260 Why on earth do they want to prohibit marking of both the incident energy and minimum arc rating ?
If it was intended to prevent the use of PPE listing by methods other than calculation, or other methods of identifying IE (such as put forward in log 359) then it should be

"the following information:
(1) Only one of the following:
a. Available incident energy and/or Minimum Arc Rating of Cloathing as identified by calculation

b. Minimum arc rating of clothing as identified by methods other than calculation of incident energy.


I would also disagree wit the way the items that need to be labeled are defined in that section, and do NOT agree that it is equivalent to what log 359 would use.

Also I would say that if ANSI Z535 is to be the label standard, and shock hazard is included on the label, then "Danger" is the only "signal word" that can be used.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:55 pm 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 9:40 am
Posts: 119
Meant to say
70E-4 Log 79 should have been accepted in principle


and 70E-31 Log 124 should have been as well


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:14 pm 
Offline
Plasma Level

Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:58 am
Posts: 1103
Location: Charlotte, NC
Wilson99 wrote:
Anyone ready to provide a summary of significant proposals? I have yet to make it through all 244 pages. :)
Thanks!


Guidance on DC systems and adding DC to the tables, stricter labeling requirements and some changes to the requirements of arc flash studies, and maintaining them current. (Read the whole thing)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 08, 2010 9:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:17 pm
Posts: 8
[quote="JKlessig"]I am sure each one is important to the people proposing it, ;)

You are correct. Thanks to all the people who actively participate to improve these standards.

What I should have said - What are some of the highlights of the items likely to be accepted that most affect the way we do arc flash studies. In other words what changes might I wish to start incorporating now in my studies looking to the future?

I have skimmed through it; hopefully I will be able to find some time soon to read it more thoroughly. In the mean time, I appreciate everyone’s comments and thoughts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:54 am 
Offline
Sparks Level

Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 67
Location: North Florida
I’ve made it through 76 pages and still reading. If I understand correctly, the same committee that voted before will take the public comments and then re-vote on the proposals based on those public comments? Then it goes to the Association Technical meeting where it’s voted on again? I’m just trying to understand the process.

Also, do all comments have to be on the form provided? Are all of the public comments published in the ROC document or just a selection of them? I’ve never really paid a lot of attention to this process, just accepted the final document, but I feel that this cycle I may comment on some of the proposed changes.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
© 2017 Arcflash Forum / Brainfiller, Inc. | P.O. Box 12024 | Scottsdale, AZ 85267 USA | 800-874-8883